It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iran? North Korea? Whos first? Does it matter?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Killak420
China is not going to invade North Korea they helped them in the first war why would they attack them now.If the US attacks Iran or North Korea China would jump in. It really doesnt matter what country they attack because it will be the end for all of us and if Isreal attacks any middle eastern country with Nuclear weapons we would see Isreal disapear with in a couple of minutes due to the fact that Russia will rain Nuclear holocust on them.


Well Spoken !

Iran is a totally peaceful nation and works marvelously with the EU. I wonder where all that anti-iranian hate preaching comes from ?




posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 02:44 PM
link   
LOL what's all this talk about North-Korea and Iran?

China is changing to capitalism and with more time also to a democracy -in fact in 2040 China will be the biggest economy in the world. They don't have any interest in an unstable backyard (aka North Korea). Let China "fix" North-Korea. And suppose China doesn't want to intervene (via diplomacy or intelligence), being sandwitched between the capitalistic China and South-Korea, North Korea is forced to change it's system over time.


If you guys have followed the news, a few months ago there was an assasination attempt on Kim Jong Il. It was probably the work of discontented North Koreans.

Regarding Iran, the country has social unrest, a lot of the Iranians -especially the new generations- want more freedom and don't want the religious men in the political power structure. Furthermore, Iran has already seeked out more relationships with the west prior to 9-11.

I don't see any reasons for going to war with Iran or North-Korea. The current situation (axis of evil) is not comparable with WWII simply because the Nazi's doctrine was based on expansionism (lebensraum). North Korea and Iran do not strife for expansionism, I don't see any reasons to go to war with them -especially not as a pre-emptive strike without any real direct threat.

Those preaching for war with one of the countries should realise that it will take huge sacrifices, the casualties will be enormous compared to Iraq.

Blobber

[edit on 17-11-2004 by Blobber]



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Blobber, nobody here is preaching it. But we have leaders that seem to be obsessed with it. I think maybe you should cut and paste your post and mail it off to good ole Dubya



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
Blobber, nobody here is preaching it. But we have leaders that seem to be obsessed with it. I think maybe you should cut and paste your post and mail it off to good ole Dubya


Skippytjc,

Thanks, but the last sentence was not directed to those who are just brainstorming on what-if-scenarios of a possible war.

It was directed to those -as I have also seen on other boards- who are actively propogating for another war -while the current one is years from over- and I believe there may be alternatives to the "threat" of North-Korea and Iran.

Anyway, cheers mate



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Can you snd it to Dubya anyways?



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 04:28 PM
link   
I don't know why I just thought of this, because I am one who thinks Iran is next, but didnt Bush say "the road to Jerusalem goes through Baghdad"?



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 04:40 PM
link   
whos first? Iran, then north korea. does it matter hell no we are all gonna die! YEAH



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Iran makes more sense. The reasons are that N. Korea has a lot more leverage.

They have thousands of artillary pointed south at Seoul (spl?) and it is estimated that in the first few hours of a war, up to a million S koreans could die. N korea also has a few strategic nuclear weapons - probably between 4 and 8.

Clearly, Kim would be willing to use them.

Also, N korea does have a very large standing army of over a million men - they would likely out number the US if we decided to go in.

So right now, Korea provides a lot more obstacles then Iran.

Plus, Iran is more of a terror threat. You don't see to many N koreans flying jets into buildings do you? Why is that? It's because they are not allowed to leave the country.

Iran on the other hand is controlled by a radical muslim government, does not have nuclear weapons yet, has a smaller army, and does not have the abillity to kill a million civs in the first few hours of conflict.

Plus, as everyone know, they have our favorite little resource - oil.

Seems simple to me.

And don't worry, there is no chance of any world war breaking out over this. Likely, we would have support from Germany and France - well, at least more then we did in Iraq.



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
There are some of us here that are of the opinion that the US government is prepping its citizens for a new war in Iran. I am of the opinion that we should look into North Korea and deal with them first before anything els is done, as they present an actual threat. What do you guys/gals think? Iran first? N.Korea first? Does it really matter?

I know there are alot of different opinions here so lets try not to sling alot of mud here. Maybe just a little, but thats all


What people don't realize about North Korea is that they are politically handy for both the US and China, and they will remain that way for some time.

The problem isn't that North Korea is a great country to defend itself. The country has 1/2 the GNP of the state of New Hampshire. They exist and are allowed to exist because China doesn't want a border with a western-controlled Korea at this time, and relations between the West, South Korea, and China aren't strong enough yet to allow a unified Korea.

Once China and the West are more strongly tied together and trust each other better, the insignificant border state called 'North Korea' will dissolve nearly overnight because both China and the West will either offer Kim Jong Il a retirement in his Swiss chatel, or just perform a coup against him.

As far as Iran, the situation remains sticky. The US has neither the political allies or the military assets to perform against Iran. At the current rate of progression, Iran is almost certain to attain nukes and maintain its sovereignty. Nuclear capability and delivery means along with a stable government is the key. The weakness with Iran remains in the political control of the country which could be exploited by the West, however its doubtful at this time that the country is vulnerable enough in this area for the US to take advantage of it.

[edit on 17-11-2004 by taibunsuu]



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Killak420
China is not going to invade North Korea they helped them in the first war why would they attack them now.If the US attacks Iran or North Korea China would jump in. It really doesnt matter what country they attack because it will be the end for all of us and if Isreal attacks any middle eastern country with Nuclear weapons we would see Isreal disapear with in a couple of minutes due to the fact that Russia will rain Nuclear holocust on them.


China would attack North Korea; they do not like them having nuclear weapons that close to their borders. The only reason China "helped" N. Korea in the Korean war was to keep the United States out, and to promote communism. That was it pretty much.

Otherwise, the two have a so-so relationship.



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Well, I just read in another thread that News sources have Iran building an actual nuclear missle. I guess with all the info being spread, its going to be Iran. At least thats how its appearing to me



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Building a nuclear missile is nothing new for Iran. You can put a chemical or nuclear warhead on Shahab 3



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Exactly. They are not even supposed to have nuclear warheads to put on the missles though. Also, I think this is a new missle with a much farther reach.




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join